Thoughts by Ted

Musings about Open Source, Linux, and Life by Theodore Tso

Archive for November 17th, 2006


The real reason why the Novell/Microsoft deal is worse than useless….

So more information emerges… According to this FAQ, the trick which Novell/Microsoft used to sidestep the section 7 of the GPLv2 was that covenant not to sue was not given to Novell, but rather directly to Novell’s customers. Very clever…. of course, that means that if you are a Novell customer, and you rely on this pledge (which hasn’t triggered yet since Microsoft hasn’t sued anyone over any patents which MS might (or might not) have covering Linux), then you won’t be able to share Linux with any of your friends; once it happened, you would be violating the GPL if you did so.

But the real reason why this deal is worse than useless is it was always going to be highly unlikely for Microsoft to sue any of Novell’s customers in any case, so it didn’t cost them a single past, present, or future penny to make this promise. Companies rarely sue end-customers, because (a) that’s not where the money is, and (b) except for patent-trolls, who have no customers, most of the end-customers of the alleged infringer of the patent are probably also customers of the patent owner — and it’s generally a really bad idea to piss off your own customers by sueing them. Even the patent-troll NTP didn’t sue any of the millions and millions of Blackberry users. Instead, it used Research in Motion, the company that produced the Blackberry.

So, if Novell didn’t receive a covenant not to sue from Microsoft but only a promise to deliver a covenant not to sue its customers, then what it’s paying for is a load of hot air; Microsoft won’t sue Novell’s customers, it will sue Novell instead! And if Novell did receive such a covenant not to sue, then the moment Microsoft attempts to assert any hypothetical patents it might (or might not) have that allegedly covers Linux, then Novell loses its right to distribute Linux, and with it, its business model. So if what Novell wrote in its FAQ here is true, what it purchased was a pure 100% unadulterated load of bullsh*t.

Like all postings in this blog, the opinions stated here are my personal ones, and in no way other than coincidence reflects the opinions of my employer. I’m not important enough to make opinions for my employer. :-)

Grant me smart adversaries rather than dumb ones….

“Lord, enlighten thou our enemies. Sharpen their wits, give acuteness to their perceptions, and consecutiveness and clearness to their reasoning powers. We are in danger from their folly, not from their wisdom: their weakness is what fills us with apprehension, not their strength.”

I found the following quote from an article eulogizing Milton Friedman to be really thought-provoking. Originally written by John Stuart Mill, a 19th century philosopher and economist, it was used in the Salon article to point out how even left-of-center economists owed Milton Friedman a debt of gratitude. However, it’s interesting to see how applicable his observation/prayer is to many other people and situations. In terms of preferring enlightened adversaries to weak ones, I can certainly think of all sorts of places where that is true, from George W. Bush and the neo-conservatives, to people like Stuart and Tim at <CENSORED> or Mike at <CENSORED>.

I suppose that shouldn’t be too surprising; very few people are actively malicious. A few act out of pure selfishness, to be sure, but most do the bad things they do out of sheer cluelessness or incompetence. A good thing to keep in mind.